Precisely. @SmileyMan also has it right. Whether you're agnostic or not is an epistemic claim - it's about belief and degrees of certainty. Whether you're atheist or not is a metaphysical claim - it's about whether or not something exists in the world. They are fundamentally different things. To be honest, I think people who claim to be agnostic are really just soft atheists who don't want to offend anyone.

Chimera of Filth

A gruesome beast with dripping flesh
Clings to me as a sick fixture
My throbbing heart it gnawed apart
It stalks and hunts me through mirrors

I'm an atheist and an agnostic, is there some kind of contradiction there that I'm unaware of?

and, who cares, dawkins is an idiot.

“Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”

Dawkins has always maintained, so far as I am aware, that he considers the existence of God extremely improbable. Many of his arguments in The God Delusion don't end with, '... therefore, God doesn't exist', but rather '... therefore, it is highly probable that God doesn't exist'. Philosophically, Dawkins is basically an empiricist with a Bayesian twist; he assiduously avoids claiming absolute certainty (i.e. believing that some claim has a 100 percent probability of being true) except, perhaps, in the case of basic logic truths.

A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

"Forgiveness means letting go of the past." ~ Gerald Jampolsky"I am justice!" ~ Light Yagami, Death Note"The choices people make tell you a lot about a person, but the reasons [...] tell you even more." ~ Albus Dumbledore (paraphrased)

I get the "he's smug" or "he's a dick," (even from fellow atheists/agnostics) but idiot? The dude is an fairly prodigious evolutionary biologist, even without all the atheism stuff, and held a pretty major position at Oxford (from which he also graduated), one of the best universities in the world.

Gnostic theist
Agnostic theist
Agnostic atheist (Dawkins, and most other "reasonable" atheists - despite of Dawkins having lapses, probably due to his age)
Gnostic atheist (fanatic)

Gnostic atheism isn't fanaticism, and Dawkins is most definitely a gnostic atheist.

from atheistforums.org

Agnostic (weak) atheist

This is the most typical kind of atheist. An agnostic atheist will admit that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god but chooses not to believe. This is largely but not exclusively due to the lack of evidence.

Gnostic (strong) atheist

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

"Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues."

A gnostic atheist, albeit seemingly contradictory to the term gnostic, isn't for or against the proposition of whether or not a god or gods exist. Rather, it is more often accepting atheism by congruence, and knowing that the existence of many proposed god(s) of religions are false by way of contradictions and apparent falsehoods within religious texts and beliefs.

the gnostic portion of "gnostic atheist" doesn't mean "i know there are no gods"
it can mean "i know that your god doesn't exist."
an example of a religious view that gnostic atheism doesn't take a stance against would be deism.

an agnostic atheist will claim that they aren't sure if any gods exist, but they don't believe in them.

a gnostic atheist will claim the same, except that if any do exist, they definitely aren't the judeo-christian god, allah, any of the hindi gods, etc.

The name of the article was misleadingly "Richard Dawkins says he’s not entirely sure God doesn’t exist"

but the quote from him that they used was “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low"

"Everybody is a gnostic atheist in relation to some deity - ie. 100% sure in its non-existence."

Of course the system of categorization I posted has to be applied on a deity-by-deity basis. My thoughts on Dawkins were only in relation to his belief in the Abrahamic God/Allah. Since he himself has said that he is less than 100% certain in its non-existence, he is by both your definition ("an agnostic atheist will claim that they aren't sure if any gods exist, but they don't believe in them." - being "sure" implying 100% certainty) and my own an agnostic atheist.

I believe what rubbed you the wrong way about my post was me calling gnostic atheists "fanatics." I did this as I believe that someone who thinks he has knowledge of a deity's non-existence, no matter how contradictory and stupid the texts describing this deity are, are relying on "faith" (or belief without any substantial evidence) as much as someone who knows that is does it exist; the latter we usually do call fanatics. While perhaps fanatic technically isn't the proper word to describe these atheists, they usually do share some traits with religious fanatics - especially when dealing with people whom do not share their beliefs.